| |
| ▲ | 999900000999 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Half the responses in this thread are from people who replaced the keyboard for about 50$ or so. Even then, if I want a new ultra thin device that doesn’t have replaceable storage or user input devices, that’s my right to buy. Who is going to magically determine what replaceable means ? From the post it looks like OP tried to fix it incorrectly. Does apple owe op a new laptop even if they damaged it ? | | |
| ▲ | streetfighter64 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Well yeah, you can probably fix it for pretty cheap if you've just got some know-how. But why do Apple need to make it more difficult to fix for no reason? Riveting the keyboard to the frame doesn't make the device "thinner", and as proved by people being able to fix it without rivets, doesn't even really serve a purpose. Your last sentence is a total non-sequitur; as far as I can tell it does not relate to anything I've said. Why are you so adamant about protecting your "right" to buy a worse product? | | |
| ▲ | 999900000999 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t understand this authoritarian need to ban everything you don’t like. Should the government have a reparability board ? Who gets to be on it ? If it pleases the King , may I buy a laptop while traveling and bring it home. An argument could be made for a refundable recycling fee. Say 5% that gets returned when you take the device to a recycling center after your done with it | | |
| ▲ | streetfighter64 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I mean, do you also consider it "authoritarian" to have e.g. regulations on vehicle exhaust? Should the government have an environmental protection agency? Who gets to be on it? What about my right to insulate my house with asbestos and paint it with lead? And who's talking about banning private import of laptops? You do know that you can regulate national sales without controlling absolutely everything right? Whoever bothers to travel to a different country just to buy a worse laptop should be allowed to do so, it's whatever. Regarding "recycling", that's all a show in order to seem more environmentally friendly with very little actual impact. You can look up how electronics "recycling" usually works in practice, which normally entails sending the waste to third world countries to have some precious metals extracted using dangerous and not exactly environmentally friendly processes. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vufLW4xOsS4 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ8BjHOdI8g | | |
| ▲ | 999900000999 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > mean, do you also consider it "authoritarian" to have e.g. regulations on vehicle exhaust? In the US this is why so many wagons have turned into SUVs which have more lax fuel efficiency requirements.
They find ways around the regulations. All Apple laptops have hard soldered SSDs. SSDs have to go bad eventually. Should the government force apple to only sell laptops with replaceable ssds ? The most environmentally friendly laptop is a used Thinkpad. But I respect others have a right to buy what they want. Back to the original point, the laptop isn’t even hard to fix. OP just didn’t do there research. | | |
| ▲ | streetfighter64 2 days ago | parent [-] | | One country did a bad job with regulations, therefore regulation as a whole is useless? Anyway, the question was if you consider it authoritarian, not whether the particular legislation in your particular country was successful. Should the government force Apple to sell laptops with replaceable SSDs? Perhaps. What's the upside of having to desolder it when it goes bad? What's the upside of riveting the keyboard to the frame? You're also dodging the question of my right to buy vegetables with high levels of PFAS and drink water with high levels of lead. > Back to the original point, the laptop isn’t even hard to fix. OP just didn’t do [their] research. The original point was never whether some guy did a good job fixing his laptop or not, but rather whether there's any point to riveting the keyboard, and more generally, whether it's worth defending companies' "rights" to sell intentionally crippled products and pollute the environment. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You might be interested in the vast world of public policy. There's more to the world than banned / not banned. In this instance, people might want a sensible pragmatic government to levy against companies that have high numbers of items ending up in eWaste processing (or discarded in fly tipping) and offer reductions to companies that invest in eWaste processing and collection. There are also legitimate total lifetime cost of item models that suggest clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct might actually be "cheaper" in time, resources, and energy across a large consumer population than a functionally equivalent item designed to be "unbuilt" and rebuilt (ie repaired). | | |
| ▲ | streetfighter64 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Another point regarding your last paragraph, there are actually tons of examples of Apple (and others) making a more complicated (and thus expensive) design sorely to prevent independent repair shops from providing cheap repairs, thus "encouraging" customers to buy a replacement, or use Apple's own "repair", which just replaces entire parts instead of repairing them, and bills enough for Apple's liking. | |
| ▲ | streetfighter64 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > clean, fast, simple manufacturing that leads to a product hard to deconstruct This seems like a total fantasy. Do you actually have any examples of non-repairability making the process cheaper? Sure there are lots of economical incentives to making stuff that you use until it breaks and then throw away, but that's just because the cost of e.g. mining metals or taking care of e-waste are externalized, due to using unethical labor in third world countries. If the "large consumer population" of the west actually had to bear the real cost of the electronics they produce, things would be vastly different. |
| |
| ▲ | rglynn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guess you can make the argument that legislating repairability will raise the price floor for devices because it increases the cost to the manufacturer. This isn't a problem for most of us in tech, but affordability can be an issue for many. | | |
| ▲ | streetfighter64 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Making devices un-fixable often costs more than just building them in the most straightforward way. In either case, I don't think a few dollars more or less in manufacturing costs will impact the consumer prices in any way. Let's not pretend that Apple (or other computer / phone companies) has thin margins. |
|
|
